We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
18
PAET III.
contention that the positive fihn is a patented article, this court must hold the combination unlawful under the decision in Straus v. American Publishers' Assn. (231 U. S., 222). There the court had before it a combination restraining commerce in copyrighted books by restrictions similar to those enforced by the defendants here. The Supreme Court, unanimously reversing the Court of Appeals of New York State, held that the copyright act and rights arising under that act do not authorize the making of an agreement respecting commerce in copyrighted books which it was conceded would have been within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act if applicable to commerce in uncopyrighted books. The copyright act affords no protection to those who have combined in restraint of trade in copyrighted books. JVIr. Justice Day said :
(234) In the case of Standard Sanitary Mffj. (\). V. United States (226 U. S., 20) this court had under consideration tlie effect of the ])atent statute u])on agreements fouiid to ])e unlawful under the Sherman law, and the ag]'e(*ments condenmed were lield not to ))e ])r()teeted as witliiu the patent nioiio])oly conferred by the statute. Replying to the contention as to the ])rot(M'tion wliicli the j)at('nt law gax'c to cuter into such agre(*iuents, this court said (p. 49) :
Rights confei'i'ed by ])atents arc, iu(lc(*d, very definite and extensive, but they do not give, any more thau oilier rights, a uui\'ersal license against posit i\ (' j)rohil)itious. The